Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Childcare Bill

Clause 41 - The learning and development requirements

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 41, page 20, line 19, after ‘children’, insert ‘, appropriately’.
Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Amess. There are two amendments left on this clause: amendments Nos. 114 and 115 and they are being taken separately, although, for once, we would not have minded their being grouped together. That is the way things happen. If I may talk a little more laterally, we might not have to spend as much time on amendment No. 115. I tabled some more amendments on Tuesday, which appear as starred amendments Nos. 312 to 315, but, alas, slightly disappointingly they will not be called. The House adjourned while we were sitting on Tuesday and I thought that the amendments had already been tabled, but that was not the case. There we are; it is one of those things. Perhaps we can return to them on Report. In any case, there are themes that are common to the other amendments that we tabled.
I want to talk about what is behind the amendments. I have mentioned the subject several times before in Committee—to the point of tedium in the case of Labour Members, I am sure.

Nick Gibb: And in the case of Members on this side.

Tim Loughton: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) for his great support.
I want to talk about the importance of attachment theory in babies and very young children. Conservative Members are great devotees of Sue Gerhardt’s book “Why Love Matters: How Affection Shapes a Baby’s Brain”, as is the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). I have a heavily thumbed copy if any Labour Members would like to borrow it later to be educated. They are old enough to be educated and taught one would hope. [Interruption.] And the Government Whip certainly hopes. It is calculated that about 40 per cent. of children in this country have an insecure attachment by the age of 12 months, as measured by various professionals. A lot research has shown that one can predict before the child is born—while the mother is pregnant—what their attachment classification will be at 12 months.
There are many studies and groups, such as OXPIP, the Oxford parent-infant project, which has done a lot of pioneering work, helped by Professor Bowlby’s theories on the issue and has been commissioned by Oxford social services to provide training in attachment; other similar projects are springing up around the country. They have identified that concentrating on babies between nought and two can make a lifelong impression on how the child and then adult will turn out, because of the nature of the way in which the child develops. That is why we want to separate the treatment of children below two and children over two and why amendment No. 114 would include a general reference to appropriateness in subsection (2) in the context of the way in which children are dealt with.
Children need sensitive, responsive care that allows them to express their distress as well as their contentment. The first two years are critical to a baby’s emotional development and, physically, to the development of their brain. Most toddlers have already learned their parents’ strategies for managing emotional arousal. If emotionally secure, they know that they are free to express their feelings and they are learning ways of managing them. If emotionally insecure, they will have learned to suppress or hide their feelings—perhaps to switch off from them if things are really bad—or they will have learned the strategy of making a big noise and fuss about everything that they feel. Those children are in danger of growing up unable to regulate their emotions well.
Parental behaviour and the behaviour of other carers—be that in a nursery environment—affects the development of the baby’s brain. Increasing positive arousal and decreasing negative arousal are both important and have effects on different areas of the brain. The most important kind of positive responsiveness initially is through physical touch, which is turning out to be extremely important for the development of children, but it also takes place through eye contact and pleasurable interaction such as playing games. The whole philosophy of play has come up before.
Social processes, by which the baby co-ordinates his system with the system of those around him, are what the early years in a nursery environment are all about. That is why the learning and development requirements in the clause must be deemed to be appropriate. We have moved away from this morning’s “taught” debate, but in this probing amendment we are attempting to insert the word “appropriately”.
In defining appropriateness, which will need to be defined more clearly in the guidance and regulations that will follow our deliberations, I am trying to lay down some of the ground work for what we consider is appropriate. It is all about the child’s physical and mental development. It is also about the parents. We know that babies of agitated mothers may stay over-aroused and live with the feeling that the expression of emotions explodes out of them, whereas well managed babies come to expect a world that is responsive to their feelings. A baby between the age of nought and  two is still physically a part of his mother, who may be breastfeeding, depending on her milk, and who may regulate his heartbeat and so on.
We all have neurons at birth, Mr. Amess. Even you and I had neurons at birth. We may not have as many as we started with, but that may be as a result of what happened to us between the ages of nought and two. I do not wish to delve into your colourful past, Mr. Amess, and what happened to you in those crucial developmental years, but clearly something went very wrong for both you and me to have ended up in this place. We were, of course, slightly salvaged by our adherence to the party that we adhere to, unlike Government Members, who clearly had some shocking experiences before they reached the age of two. However, we all have neurons at birth.
We do not need to grow any more, but we need to connect those neurons up and make them work better for us. With more connections at an early stage, there is a better performance and a greater ability to use the brain. Between six and 12 months, there is a massive burst of these synaptic connections—I am sorry if I blind the Committee with technical stuff, but it is necessary—in the pre-frontal cortex. They achieve their highest density just when the developing pleasurable relationship between parents and babies is at its most intense. The neurons will not be functional until the child is about 18-months-old. We see that, in children who have not had the right sort of attention at an early age, the neurons are in a state of semi-chaos and are not as well connected. That is why attention is so crucial, because the brain grows most rapidly in the first 18 months. A baby’s brain doubles in weight over the first year of life, and difficult babies are often difficult because their parents or carers are emotionally unavailable to them.
That is why it is so important that if a child is not with its parents, the person with whom it spends time—a carer in a nursery—must give him the right sort of attention. It is not about ticking boxes or inspecting the nursery to make sure that the taps are in the right place and the loos and radiators work, crucial though those may be to creating the right environment. The single most important factor in that child’s development will be the contact and attachment that it builds up with its parent, or its carer in the parent’s place in a nursery or other environment. If that does not occur and stresses result, all sorts of problems can arise.
I am also making the point that happy babies are made by happy parents. Therefore, whatever we do in the Bill to make the attainment of appropriate child care even easier must be good for removing stresses from the parent and, in turn, that is good for creating a better reaction with the child.
I am trying to tease out some of the Minister’s thoughts, because I believe that she and I have the same objectives. We both want to achieve the same sort of development in the very early years for those children and make sure that their neurons are tied up neatly rather than chaotically. However, we do not want prescriptive measures to be imposed on child care environments that miss the point that we should be  doing more to make sure that key workers in child care environments provide appropriate care to help those children develop. Nursery projects around the country have recognised that. The Sunderland infant programme aims to ascertain whether it is feasible, practical and economical to screen routinely for less than sensitive interaction and then to tailor interventions accordingly.
I do not disagree with most of what is in the clause, although we have concerns about how people may seek to define it. I am worried that the Government have missed a trick, because there is no mention of attachment in the Bill. I hope that it will feature in the guidance. That is why the amendments that we sought to table, but unfortunately were too late, specifically included secure attachment as one of the areas of learning and development listed in subsection (3), because we should be talking about personal and social development and about securing emotional development to positive attachments.
I would like the Government to respond to all this wonderful child psychology, which I am sure comes as second nature to you, Mr. Amess, by saying what importance they place on the appropriate treatment of very young children to ensure that they not only develop properly but, and most important, develop proper attachments with the people around them. If it is not the parents but an alternative child care environment, the key workers there must be primed, trained and alert to encouraging those appropriate attachments with the children. Nurseries should have a clear definition of a key person and clear evidence of the way in which those approaches are being implemented. Careful attention must be paid to any child expressing attachment relationships to the key person or others.
I am grateful for your sufferance here, Mr. Amess, but it is an important subject for many of us. I hope that the Minister can respond positively if not to the wording of the amendment, which is deliberately loose because it is a probing amendment, but to the principles behind it, that would send out helpful signals that the Government set great store on encouraging attachment. That is a key part of the way in which a child can develop more securely and positively in the first two years of his or her life in a child care environment away from the home. Therefore, I am keen to hear what the Minister says.

Annette Brooke: If I may comment on the actual amendments—[Interruption.] I am beginning to wonder whether I am on the right page. I hope that the Minister will agree with me. I want to say something quite different from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I believe that I am addressing his amendment No. 114.
I took the amendment to relate to assessment procedures rather than attachment theory and I intended to ask a question when we reached clause 42. If I may do that now, I will not need to speak on clause 42, which refers to
“A learning and development order specifying assessment arrangements.”
How much consultation will there be on appropriate assessment methods? “Appropriately” is a good insertion, and it ties in with my question on clause 42.
We are all concerned about those unfortunate newspaper articles following the publication of the Childcare Bill, in which some commentators suggested that it meant league tables for babies. We can say more in Committee to clarify the matter for those people who do not interpret the Bill in the same way. Those issues have to be addressed.
Amendment No. 115 is important.

David Amess: Order.

Annette Brooke: I am sorry, I am on the wrong amendment.

Beverley Hughes: I shall speak briefly about the amendment and the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. I should like to assure her and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about the specifics of the amendment.
The clause replicates the provision in the Education Act 2002, allowing for observation-based assessments of children. It is implicit in the wording of the Bill that the assessments will be appropriate and, as I have said repeatedly, that there will be full consultation on all aspects of the early years foundation stage. That will include arrangements for assessment.
The hon. Lady referred to some of the newspaper articles that inaccurately sensationalised the foundation stage when we announced it. She should have read the range of newspaper articles, because many people in more reputable newspapers sought to put the record straight. I have, and I am sure that she has, no intention of allowing the more lurid and sensationalised interpretations from some of the tabloid press to determine our actions on those matters.
The hon. Gentleman raised a fundamental point with which I agree. The importance of attachment for babies and young children is acknowledged as crucial. The feeling of security and safety, being valued and developing attachments to significant adults constitute the essential foundation without which the learning and development identified in clause 41 may be impaired. It is the bedrock, and it sets some of the essential conditions for maximising children’s development naturally, freely, safely and happily.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Bowlby and quoted other people. When I was teaching many years ago, Vera Falberg was for a long time the doyenne of attachment theory. Her ideas have been subsequently taken forward by more recent authors and eminent academic researchers. As a model for understanding the environment and personal relationships that a young child needs to develop, it has been well established that they need the safety and feeling of security from which they can experiment with the rest of the world and, through that, enhance their learning  and development. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that that model is already deeply embedded in the materials that we have provided. It will be replicated in the early years foundation stage.
I am happy to share with the hon. Gentleman an extract from something that appears on the “Birth to Three Matters” CD-ROM. We produce guidance, practice examples and a range of materials for practitioners. The extract is entitled “Attachment and the Key Person Role”. It summarises some of the main findings from modern researchers and translates them into practice for settings to consider. It states:
“The first few months of a baby’s life are important for the development of attachment. ‘Time spent together is crucial for a parent to tune into a baby’s non-verbal signals and to feel that a personal relationship is growing through smiles, gurgles, long stares and pre-verbal exchanges of sound.’ Lindon (1998) ... Selleck (2001) points to a growing body of literature which emphasises the importance of a continuing attachment relationship which links between key persons/practitioners who care for, play with and educate children in settings outside their homes in close association with children’s significant attachment figures from home.”
The paper helpfully makes a point that the researchers did: for attachment, a key person is not the same as a key worker. Many settings adopt the concept and role of the key worker, which is about co-ordinating activities and communications. For a young child, a key person is a person who develops a relationship with the child on a consistent basis.
Similarly, “Birth to Three Matters” contains quotations from well-known academics. The section on developing self-assurance states that
“the child who has benefited from security in her relationships is likely to develop a sense of self-confidence and assurance, so that she will have better resources to cope with difficulties.”
That is exactly the principle of attachment theory. Right at the outset, there must be a foundation from which children can explore their environment and develop relationships, and so learn and develop.
There are other examples throughout the document. Under “A Healthy Child”, the guidance states:
“Young babies ... crave close attachments with a special person within their setting”,
and “Effective Practice” states:
“Key person and parent handing the young baby directly to each other at the beginning and end of each day.
Establish shared understandings between home and setting about ways of responding to babies’ emotions.”
Those are just a few examples. I could go on, as there are many.
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the concept is not just included in the Bill but is its bedrock. It is embedded in all the materials that we produce. It is not included as an element of clause 41 because it is not part of learning and development. As I said, it is much more fundamental than that. It is the basis from which learning and development proceed. It is about the relationships through which children feel secure, safe, valued and loved. Without such relationships, they do not have sufficient stability, security and predictability in their environment to take the opportunities that learning, whether with parents or in a child care setting, offers to them.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that his amendment is not necessary to incorporate either appropriate assessment or the slightly wider point that he made about the importance of attachment theory. We already recognise and promote it, and that will continue as we bring “Birth to Three Matters” and the foundation stage into the early years foundation stage.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister. That short debate was useful. I am greatly heartened by what she says about attachment theory and the concepts that I have outlined. I think she used the term “bedrock”: the essential foundation without which learning and development in this part of the Bill could be impaired. She said that the concept was already deeply embedded in the Government’s thinking, which is helpful. It is not mentioned in the Bill, but I take on board why that would not be appropriate. We needed to be assured that it was at the heart of the Government’s thinking and what they are trying to encourage.
We have our disagreements with the Government on the way in which the clause is laid out, harking back to the use of the word “taught”, but we do not disagree with anything else that is there. It is a matter of how people interpret it and put it into practice. Given the Minister’s support for the idea, I hope that she will put her money where her mouth is and ensure that projects such as OXPIP, which does such sterling work in Oxfordshire and in trying to promote its good work in other similar projects throughout the country, receive closer attention from the Government. OXPIP has tried to obtain greater Government support, financially and verbally, in the past. Its has shown that it adds serious value through what it does. That value is not properly appreciated for many years because by concentrating on those first two years, they might be preventing a child from going off the rails aged seven, eight, nine or as a teenager.
I hope that the Minister will consider in a little more detail some of the work that is taking place and those projects that are living on a shoestring with little public funding. It would be a false economy not to give them more attention than they have received in the past. If she would like me to arrange a meeting for her to see OXPIP at first hand, I would be more than happy to do that. If she came to visit, everyone would benefit.
On the basis of the great accord that has broken out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in page 20, line 28, at end insert—
‘and
(g)the baby’s sense of self.’.
Having had your sufferance before, Mr. Amess, I shall not go into great detail. I want to make a similar point about attachment theory, which is encapsulated in the phrase “the baby’s sense of self”. The amendment would add that to the areas of learning development by inserting paragraph (g) at the end of subsection (3).
It is difficult to define the baby’s sense of self, but the Minister touched on it when she talked about the self-confidence of a baby at that age—an assurance that flows from a good, secure attachment. It hangs on the definition of “baby”, which we have tried to change. Amendments that were starred and unable to be selected refined some of the criteria in subsection (3) by explicitly mentioning positive attachments.
It is worth noting that the sense of self to which the amendment refers comes from the success of the early relationships of babies, their response and what they feel. That is contingent on the well-being of the parent, which is why problems arise when the mother has post-natal depression and is unable to respond properly to the baby. Having heard some of the case studies and spoken to case workers in OXPIP, it is interesting how a mother cannot physically touch the baby, so that the baby is confused and turns away.
I have also watched some of the videos supplied by Professor Bowlby of babies left in crèches in playschools, which show that there is a way of introducing a baby to a carer—the key person who will be standing in for the parent during the day—that fosters a greater attachment with that person, rather than mum simply arriving, plonking down baby and departing, which instantly gets things off to a confused start. That is what the sense of self is all about.
There were some alarming figures the other day in that scurrilous rag The Guardian—

Edward Miliband: Does the hon. Gentleman read The Guardian?

Tim Loughton: I did not read it myself. Somebody physically took The Guardian and passed on the expurgated version to me. I did not have to handle it, I am glad to say.
According to a new study by Adrian Angold, who is a British professor of psychiatry at Duke university medical centre in North Carolina:
“One in 10 preschool children, aged as young as two to five, could be suffering from anxiety, depression or other mental illnesses”.
The research shows that
“children aged between two and five have the same rate of mental health disorders as teenagers, and not much less than adults.”
That is alarming. We know—as you know, Mr. Amess, as a member of the Health Committee—the problems with the increasingly high prevalence of mental illness among young people. If that is beginning to manifest itself at the age of two, it must be as a direct result of those crucial first two years when the attachments have not been properly formed, the neurons have gone haywire—I will not go back over that—and a baby has not started properly to establish its sense of self and what he or she is all about and does not have the confidence and assurance to which the Minister referred.
Again, this is a probing amendment and I am sure that the Minister will tell me that she does not disagree with the thrust of it and that it is included as part of what goes on automatically. However, given that, as we have said, this is pioneering legislation, it would be  useful for her to put on the record that there is something in the baby’s sense of self that goes much more broadly into the areas on which I have sought to engage the Committee. I could quote great learned tomes, as the Minister did, by Fonargy, Ainsworth and Bell, and Sue Gerhardt herself, but, in the interests of making progress, I will not. We have made our point and I hope that the Minister will respond in equally sympathetic and empathetic terms.

Annette Brooke: I hope that I might be forgiven for believing that the hon. Gentleman had moved amendments Nos. 114 and 115 at the same time, having listened to the speeches.

Ian Cawsey: The hon. Lady is forgiven.

Annette Brooke: That makes me feel so much better.
Obviously, a baby’s sense of self is incredibly important, but it is one part of the framework in “Birth to Three Matters”. That is why I hesitated to offer my support. I see that we have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to how much detail we include. As has been mentioned, I am also enthusiastic about pursuing the implications of attachment theory and what we can do to overcome any problems in early emotional development. That is why I thought that we were considering the areas of learning and development.
I want to raise one point with the Minister about subsection (3). If I remember rightly, the list of areas of learning and development is the same as for the current foundation stage. I am not raising the same issue as I did about the word “taught”, but, thinking about nought to three-year-olds, I hesitated when I saw the word “literacy”. I thought hard about how a mother or a child care worker would look at books and work through the issues, but I remained faintly troubled about “literacy”. I did not have the time or the inclination to get out all my old books to see what literacy included, but it would be helpful if the Minister could address literacy in relation to nought to two-year-olds.

Beverley Hughes: I will not repeat the points that I made in my response to the previous amendment. [Interruption.]

David Amess: Order. We are finding out what this knocking noise is all about. People are looking concerned. We will have more information.

Beverley Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Amess. I was more startled by your intervention than by the knocking noise.
To respond specifically to the hon. Gentleman’s points, I have to say what he expected. A baby’s growing, and then differentiated, sense of self, if I can put it like that, is an important part of their development. It is included in the personal, social and emotional strand of development and, as he thought, is contained in the frameworks that we are bringing together for the foundation stage.
However, important as that is, I am not sure how one would judge a young child’s sense of self outside of what they do and how they behave, and “Birth to Three Matters” attempts to translate that for practitioners. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one strand of “Birth to Three Matters” is “A strong child”, which is very much about sense of self. Clearly it does not mean physically strong, but refers to a child with a strong sense of their own identity and the way in which they should interact with others. However, that must be translated into behaviour and practice, so under the heading “Developing Self-assurance”, the focus is on such things as becoming able to trust and rely on their own abilities, gaining self-assurance through a close relationship, and demonstrating that they are becoming confident in what they can do and are feeling self-assured and supported. Those strands are translated in “Birth to Three Matters” into effective practice that practitioners/carers must demonstrate if they are to inculcate in a young child the sense of self and the behaviour that comes from it. Carers must have clear and consistent expectations and must trust in a child’s ability. They must help the child to increase his self-confidence, feel valued and know that his efforts are appreciated. That is what we are doing now, and it will be carried through into the amalgamation of “Birth to Three Matters” with the early years foundation stage.
The areas of learning to which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole referred are replicated in the foundation stage. As she rightly said, they are the strands of learning and development. Even more important than the definition is what those strands mean in practice for children’s behaviour and the learning and development that we want to see and what practitioners must do to support those strands.
I hope that, with those assurances, Opposition Members will be satisfied that the provision is important, is contained in what we already do and will continue to be so.

Tim Loughton: I do not wish to detain the Committee further. I am again grateful for the Minister’s explanation. I think that that detail will read well outside the Committee. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I shall certainly not repeat the debate that we have had, but I want to say why I still have concerns about the word “taught”. If there had been more time this morning, I would have said that teaching and learning are always bracketed together throughout key stages 1 and 2. Once more, I ask the Minister to reflect on the wording in subsection (2)(b), as I am convinced that it can be improved. I hope that she accepts that. Does subsection (4) refer to an affirmative order? That is important, should there be a change to what has been laid down for some considerable time.
I raised the principles behind the early years foundation stage on Second Reading. Thanks to the Minister, we now have an outline of the vision and some examples of the principles involved. They will probably be far more important than anything else that is said. I am concerned that because the two sets of principles are different—the stage is divided into two—it will be difficult to get one comprehensive set of principles that does not involve prescription but that is relevant to the whole age group.
Some interesting points have been made. For example, many providers will be pleased to have an emphasis on the outside as well as the inside environment. I assume that there will be a full consultation on the principles. It would be good to have a public seminar involving many people, as that is so important.
Still on the principles, I ask the Minister whether in that discussion—perhaps I am making my representation now—this matter could be addressed. The term “family background” is included in the vision and in what we have been getting so far, but I do not see the same mention of family as appears in “Birth to Three Matters”. Again, I do not have a prescriptive view about what format the family should take, but we should not separate parents and children when we discuss child development. We must consider the whole family unit, and I would be heartened to see that picked up.

Beverley Hughes: I noted the hon. Lady’s reference to key stages 1 and 2, but it is not relevant to imply that there is a parallel between the foundation stage and key stages 1 and 2 in terms of methodology. We have made that point throughout.
 The hon. Lady is right: key stages 1 and 2 begin a more formalised process of learning. It is not very formal, but it is more formalised. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have been at pains to give evidence from current practice and the documents that the Government have provided that the early years foundation stage—“Birth to Three Matters” and the current foundation stage—is not about formal learning processes. Because we are being specific in putting forward a rational and coherent concept around learning and development, which is what the areas of learning identified in the clause are—they attempt to conceptualise learning and development in a way that is not new, as the hon. Lady acknowledged, as that is done in the foundation stage already—it does not mean that the experience of children in settings as they go about activities that will contribute to those areas of learning will be formalised. It will not. It will be as now: informal, but a mixture of practitioner or teacher-guided activity and free activity.
The practitioner will take a robust and coherent approach both to observing what individual children do and how it relates to their level of ability in those areas of learning and development, and to thinking about the next steps and opportunities that will take that young child in a play-based way through the next stages of development that they have demonstrated an  ability to attempt. To ask practitioners to use a coherent framework rationally and systematically is not the same as saying that we want the child’s experience to be structured in the way in which the hon. Lady fears. I hope that I have managed to reassure her a little about that.
The order will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and as I have repeatedly said, the early years foundation stage will be subject to extensive consultation. As with everything that has been done so far, not only do we want to use the experience of experts and practitioners, we want to take them with us. Consultation will be extensive and genuine.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 42 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Power to enable exemptions to be conferred

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 233, in page 22, leave out line 25.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 234, in page 22, leave out line 30.

Annette Brooke: These two amendments were put forward by a group of child care experts. They are probing amendments on matters about which people would like clarification from the Minister. They propose that certain lines should be left out of the Bill, and I am sure that by justifying why they should be left in, the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what their significance is.
The National Children’s Bureau and the Early Childhood Forum are concerned that groups of providers could be exempt from the need to meet the learning and development requirements. They say:
“Our experience indicates that as this is a national framework, all providers should be expected to work towards it and that settings will not improve in quality if there are whole classes of exemptions allowed. This also has implications for the training of early years providers.”
The second amendment in this group is significant because those same groups are concerned that the Bill might mean that severely disabled children, for example, could be taken out of the equation. Their question is: should not this framework be a challenge for all?
I can understand why the exemption was used for the previous foundation stage. Blind children were exempted from handwriting tests. That seems perfectly reasonable, but I seek clarification from the Government about the circumstances in which they envisage this provision being used. I would not want a general bracketing with a child with specific disabilities. It would be a lot easier to exempt them but I do not think that the Government are trying to take the easy option as far as children with disabilities are  concerned, and that is not what the Minister is committed to doing. A clarification would be helpful for all of us.

Beverley Hughes: This is an important clause. As we have stressed, the point of the early years foundation stage, and the new regulatory and inspection framework that supports it, is quality. The bringing together of the existing frameworks is crucial to deliver high-quality outcomes for children. As a result, all schools and registered providers, other than those exempted under the clause, will be required to deliver the early years foundation stage. For the first time, regardless of what setting they attend, that will ensure that all children receive high-quality, integrated education and care provision.
Initially for some individual providers this may be challenging. The exemptions power in subsection (1) will enable, on an exceptional basis, the Secretary of State to exempt providers from having to deliver all aspects of the foundation stage. Such exemptions would be made only in exceptional circumstances: for example, on a time-limited basis during which period we would expect local authorities to use their powers under clause 13 to support providers in improving the quality of their practice and to give them training so that they are able to deliver the foundation stage.
We do not want to use that power to exempt providers for a long period of time or indefinitely to exclude them from the general direction of travel, because it is all a matter of quality. However, there may be circumstances in which an individual provider could be released from all the requirements for a period under close observation and with support from the local authority to allow it to come up to the right standard.
Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations permitting providers to disapply some of the learning and development requirements for a particular child, which would depend on particular circumstances. It would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, rather than a category one. The benchmark for us would be what was in the best interests of an individual child.
However, as we take forward the development of the early years foundation stage, we must ensure that we can provide for human rights implications and the rights of parents to ensure that—within appropriate boundaries—their children are cared for in accordance with their own philosophies and beliefs. Subsection (2) provides this flexibility to be able to take account of specific circumstances, philosophies or parental values.
We have to have this flexibility in the Bill to take account of some of those exceptional circumstances, but I reassure the hon. Lady that we regard any exemption as being exceptional and mostly for a time-limited period to enable people to reach the ability to deliver the early years foundation stage in full. For the reasons I have outlined, we need the power to have that flexibility in the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister. She really did cover my concerns thoroughly in that response. I was quite pleased that the local authority’s role and quality were acknowledged. I think that we exchanged looks at that point. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 46 and 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Amendments relating to the curriculum

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in page 53, line 9, leave out ‘“maintained nursery school” ’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 154 and 170.

Beverley Hughes: These three Government amendments are wholly technical. Amendments Nos. 153 and 170 ensure that the definition of maintained nursery schools in section 76 of the Education Act 2002 is retained, as there are still references to maintained nursery schools in that Act. Amendment No. 154 is needed to clarify the wording of paragraph 9. The words “ceases to have effect” are unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 154, in page 53, line 37, leave out ‘ceases to have effect’.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48 - Inspections

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 23, line 18, after ‘prescribed’, insert
‘, but which should not be less than 3 years,’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 56, in page 23, line 39, leave out from beginning until ‘an’.
No. 205, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert—
‘(af)an order under section 48,’.

Nick Gibb: Amendment No. 27 relates to subsection (2)(a), which says that the chief inspector of schools
“must at such intervals as may be prescribed inspect early years provision”.
The amendment suggests that there should be not less than three years between inspections.
It is important that the inspections are frequent, perhaps even more often than every three years, but certainly not less often. There tends to be quite a high turnover of staff in early years provision. As a consequence, the quality of the care provided could change quite a lot and rapidly in those three years.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about that. If she cannot accept the amendment, perhaps she will assure the Committee that the regulations that ultimately emerge will prescribe a period and that it will be of that order.
Amendment No. 205 applies to clause 98, which introduces the affirmative resolution procedures to certain specified order-making clauses. The amendment would apply the affirmative resolution procedure to clause 48, which seems to have four different order-making powers—quite a lot for one clause. Subsection (2)(a) gives the power to prescribe intervals at which inspections should be made, which we have just discussed; subsection (3) relates to regulations to prescribe circumstances in which the chief inspector is not required to inspect early years provision; and subsection (4) deals with regulations that can prescribe the regulatory regime of early years provision at independent schools.
As all those regulation-making powers relate to important issues, Opposition Members believe that they should be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

Maria Eagle: As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause covers the inspection of early years provision. Subsection (2)(a) requires the chief inspector to undertake inspections at prescribed intervals, creating a regular cycle of inspections of all providers. Subsection (2)(b) requires the chief inspector to carry out an inspection at the request of the Secretary of State, and subsection (2)(c) allows the chief inspector to carry out an inspection at other times if he considers it appropriate. That gives him the flexibility that he needs to deal with numerous types of consequences and sets of circumstances that he may face.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about what he thought amendment No. 27 meant. The way in which it is worded means that the minimum interval that could be set between regular inspections is three years. He appeared to suggest—he will intervene and tell me if I have got this wrong—that he quite liked the idea of inspections taking place more regularly than that, but that a regular period should be prescribed. That was his main point. I could not quite discern whether he wants inspections to take place no more regularly than every three years, which would be the effect of the amendment. If so, he would be changing the current legislation from prescribing a maximum period of three years to prescribing a minimum period of three years. That may or may not be what he intended, but it did not seem to be what he was arguing.
If the hon. Gentleman’s concern is that the inspections take place at regular intervals and that that is specified in the regulations, I assure him that that is what we intend to do. One of the impacts of the amendment would be to remove the chief inspector’s flexibility to inspect more regularly if necessary, using  the regular cycle of inspections and duties under subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c). I am not convinced from what he said that that was the intention behind his amendment. It is a bit brain twisting if he considers it carefully. [Interruption.] Yes, it is something to do with neurons and synapses. [Interruption.] I have no comment on when or if they are attached.
The clause allows us the flexibility to reorganise inspection cycles without changing primary legislation. For example, it might be sensible to ensure that inspections of child care on school sites form part of the school inspection. It may therefore be sensible to have a minimum of slightly less than three years between those inspections in a particular instance in respect of a particular school. Given that we want to keep the burden of inspections to a minimum commensurate with safety and safeguarding, we would not want to prevent the inspector from being able to use his flexible good sense in a reasonable manner to make that kind of judgment in any individual case. Amendment No. 27 would have that effect, but I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman intended.

Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I have been baffled by the Minister’s comments and I thought that perhaps I had got my double negatives in a twist, but I just noticed that there are two versions of the amendment. There is a version dated 13 December, which says that the intervals are
“not to exceed 3 years”,
which is what I was talking about, and then there is a version dated 15 December, which says that the intervals
“should not be less than 3 years”.
I am baffled about why there are two versions. The earlier one is correct, not the later version.

David Amess: I am advised that there may have been a printing change.

Tim Loughton: Where does that leave us?

David Amess: We will take further advice, but we will have to deal with the amendment as it stands.

Maria Eagle: I am glad to see that the synapses of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are clearly in fine working order. [Interruption.] Here I am, doing my best to be kind to him and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham tries to take all the credit. I suppose that that is the way these things sometimes work. I have no doubt that we will clear it up.
However, given the confusion, and given what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton set out as his aim, the current wording does the job. There will be consultation on the regulations. There will be plenty of opportunity for him or anybody else who is interested to make representations about what the interval should be. He will have noted that it is three years for schools, and therefore we are probably not too far apart, in practice.
Amendment No. 205 would require that regulations in respect of early years inspections and the treatment of independent schools be approved by both Houses before they come into force. Of course we need to take seriously the need to ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We had a bit of a debate this morning on whether the negative or affirmative resolution procedure is the right one in various cases. Without repeating too much of what I said, there are provisions for orders to be made under both the affirmative and the negative resolution procedures for different proposed regulations. The way in which we choose which one to use for each power is in line with current practice across the House and across legislation.
The most important regulations—those that are most likely to have the biggest impact on how the early years foundation stage and other parts of the Bill are implemented—are, of course, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but the type of regulation to which the hon. Gentleman referred is normally subject to an order under the negative resolution procedure. Such orders are laid on the Table of the House, and it is perfectly open to any Member to pray against the order and bring about a fuller debate.
I hope that I have convinced and reassured the hon. Gentleman that it is not necessary to use the affirmative resolution procedure in this instance.

David Amess: It appears that there is a discrepancy in the wording of the amendments. We shall take further advice as the Committee develops to find out exactly how it happened.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to you, Mr. Amess. I suspect that the blame lies somewhere in my court, but I am not sure.
Whatever the explanation is, the intention of the amendment that we should have been debating was that the interval should not exceed three years. I am grateful for the Minister’s response to the substantive point, and that she will take on board representations when the regulations are drafted, as it is important that inspections are regular—certainly not less regular than inspections of schools—given the problems that many child care providers have with staff turnover and, indeed, the importance of the quality of child care. It is important that schools have high-quality teaching and raise standards, but there is a particular sensitivity in respect of young children. We must ensure that they are looked after in a safe environment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 273, in page 23, line 19, after ‘applies’, insert
‘using appropriately and qualified staff’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 285, in page 23, line 25, at end insert—
‘(d)must ensure that such inspections are carried out by inspectors who are qualified and experienced in early years provision.’.

Annette Brooke: As I have said all along, quality must run through the whole package—quality in terms of the sufficiency and the early years foundation stage creating a framework for delivery of a quality curriculum, or whatever word we want to use for it. That must be backed up by qualified staff but, equally, the inspection process is important. Several people who work in the sector have expressed concerns about the quality and consistency of inspections of early years facilities. As we move into the new phase, it is important to ensure that the inspection is of the highest possible quality across the board. Although I imagine that the Minister might say that it is inappropriate to put that amount of detail in the Bill, which I accept, I want her to address the problem to ensure that we take forward all aspects of early years provision, including the quality of the inspectorate.
Although I wrote the amendments, I have a briefing that was provided by the Early Childhood Forum. Its experts say:
“It is imperative that OfSTED inspectors have the expertise and understanding of the range of early years philosophies in order to complete the 3 year cycle inspection”.
The briefing continues:
“Inspectors also need robust training on the Disability Discrimination Act and the amended Race Relations Act. It is also vital that those inspecting on the new framework particularly in schools have an in depth knowledge and understanding of children’s development”.
On Second Reading I asked: when there is an inspection in the context of a school, will the inspector be an early years specialist? I asked that without knowing the answer. As we move forward, the answer will be important. The ages of three to five are inspected within the whole framework, but with early years, it becomes even more important to have an early years background among the team of inspectors.
The Early Childhood Forum points out that the early outcomes framework, which was published only in September, has a number of targets and indicators. It is used by inspectors through joint area reviews. The forum says:
“For young children under the outcome of ‘education, training and recreation’, the aim is that the child is ‘ready for school’.”
We might agree that that should be one objective, but it is rather narrow. All members of the forum are concerned about that. The briefing says:
“They”—
the members—
“feel that it is an impoverished outcome for the quality of experiences that children have engaged in since birth, and that using this term as the summation of those experiences is far from ideal.”
My example illustrates that we must get right the inspection process as well as the other processes. Inspection processes are developing in all sorts of service provision and best practice must be emerging.
The amendments pose questions to which I should like some answers. I also want some reassurance that just as with all other aspects of the Bill, there will be a developmental process with regard to inspection.

David Amess: To come clean on the disparity about the amendment, the Committee has probably realised that there has been quite a turnover of Clerks. We shall not make a great fuss about what has gone on. It will all come out in the wash.

Nick Gibb: It is important that the inspectors are qualified in early years child care and infant care. Child care experts, such as OXPIP, to which we have talked and to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred, have raised their concerns about the type of inspectors who will carry out the inspections. They believe that the inspectors need to be experts in infant mental health and to have good skills, including observation skills. They say that a secure attachment, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is vital in the first two years of a child’s life. Therefore, an early years inspector looks for different things than a school inspector.
Early years inspectors need to ensure, for example, that a key worker is attached to each child. They should look at the way in which staff greet parents and children at the start of the day, how they help the child’s transition from parent to nursery, how they deal with the separation issue when the child leaves the parent, and how they manage the children leaving the nursery at the end of the day. The inspectors should consider how the staff handle a child’s favourite toy. Do they simply bundle it away in a cupboard to prevent it from being lost or damaged, or ensure that the child has it safely throughout the session? They must take into account things such as the strength of the key worker role, support for the key worker in the day care provision and staff turnover. How would an inspector judge, for example, child care provision that appeared to countenance a lot of crying? Would they regard crying as an important part of a child’s emotional development or would they judge more highly a setting in which there was no noise at all? Experts say that crying among very young children is an important part of their emotional development: if there was no crying in a centre, that might be a problem rather than a sign of something good.
To assess such matters properly, an inspector must be qualified and experienced, particularly in secure attachment and infant mental health.

Maria Eagle: I understand why the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole tabled the amendments and made the points that she has. I do not disagree with anything that she said about the importance of the provision. She also recognised that the quality of Ofsted’s inspection work must develop continually.
The clause requires the chief inspector to carry out inspections of early years provision at regular intervals and gives him the flexibility to do so at any other time or when the Secretary of State requests. The amendments would place a statutory duty on the chief inspector to ensure that the inspection of early years provision was carried out by inspectors with specific early years qualifications and expertise.
We fully support the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure high-quality inspections and appropriately qualified staff. There is no doubt that, without a robust and professional inspection system, we will not be able to show that we have met the key objectives. Therefore, the inspection system is an essential part of raising standards in early years settings. It will enable us to demonstrate that we have done so and to see whether we have met the aspirations for outcomes that we debated on clause 1.
I am aware that Ofsted has devoted a good deal of time and effort to ensuring that its inspectors are trained and made aware of latest developments, and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to it keeping up with theory and development in the field. All members of Ofsted’s staff who carry out early years inspections have now been trained to inspect against the Department’s “Birth to Three Matters” framework, which will be a key element of the early years foundation stage. However, that is not enough: there will have to be further training. Ofsted must ensure that it can meet the high standards required by the amendments. My Department will continue to work with Ofsted between now and 2008, when we expect the Bill to be fully implemented, and beyond, to make sure that its inspectors are sufficiently qualified and trained to do their new job.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole rightly expected me to say that the Bill is perhaps not the place to be so specific about the qualifications. We do not wish to curtail the chief inspector’s ability to deploy staff as he sees fit, with his knowledge of their good and bad points. However, we agree with the sentiments and intention behind the amendment. The discussion has been worth while and I hope that she feels reassured.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her comments. Yes, I do feel reassured. I cannot overestimate how important this strand is. We are discussing a continuum. As we progress to having a graduate in every children’s centre, it will be right that the inspectors have at least equivalent qualifications, which is not always the case at present. With those words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Report of inspections

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 24, line 8, after ‘children’, insert ‘and parents’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in page 24, line 9, leave out ‘in connection with’ and insert ‘which directs’.
No. 274, in page 24, line 10, at end insert—
‘(1A)The report written under subsection (1) must not include a grade or mark relating to the provision inspected, either overall or for separate elements.’.

Nick Gibb: Amendment No. 57 probes the extent to which child care is also meant to assist parents, and whether that ought to be an aspect of the report. We discussed the importance of child care for working parents, which the report should reflect. Amendment No. 58 makes a semantic point about the focus of leadership and management.

Annette Brooke: Amendment No. 274 is another one of the “nots” that I am endeavouring to put into the Bill. The very fact that the Government have two “nots” in clause 41 shows that there is value in not being too prescriptive. Obviously, adding the amendment would be reassuring. As the newspaper articles that I referred to were, in fact, in The Guardian, I was surprised that Labour Members, as well as some Opposition Members, suggested that they were from the tabloids. That was the problem: the quality press made the Bill the main story the day after its launch.
The amendment would ensure that we do not start getting league tables of any sort. That does not mean that Ofsted reports should not be published and made fully accessible, but things develop as part of the desire to drive up standards. That would be incredibly undesirable in this sector.

Beverley Hughes: Amendment No. 57 seeks to ensure that parents’ needs are taken into account and reported on in the report that inspectors produce after they complete an inspection. I agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that to ensure that a particular setting properly meets the needs of children, and that it is delivering the early years foundation stage and adhering to the principles behind it, providers will have to establish good relationships with parents. As we know, parents are the single most important factor, for better or worse, in determining outcomes for children. Therefore, practitioners will need to work with parents to ensure that children’s needs are met.
The hon. Gentleman repeated some of the comments that I made about practitioners and parents building relationships, how that determines and shapes the experience of the child, how the child should be handed over from one adult to another at the beginning of the day and how the child sees that there is a relationship—all of that is important. However, the early years foundation stage is about ensuring that children’s needs are met and that their well-being is promoted. Although the active involvement of parents is integral to that, the early years foundation stage itself is not about meeting parents’ needs, which is how subsection (1)(c) would be phrased with the amendment. I hope that he will accept that the chief inspector should not be required to report on whether parents’ needs are being met, although he will need to report on the extent to which practitioners involve parents in what is going on in the setting and whether relationships between practitioners and parents are strong and sound.
Amendment No. 58 concerns the extent to which the inspector reports on the quality of leadership and management, which is also important. Such reporting will include a number of factors, including staff  deployment, morale, planning, organisation and the culture of the setting. Subsection (1)(d) is so worded to capture the variety of factors that could be considered to contribute to the quality of leadership and management. It also ensures that different models of early years provision can be taken into account. For instance, some settings are part of large national organisations, so we must ensure that inspectors can comment not simply on the leaders of individual settings, but on the extent to which any parent organisation, whether a voluntary organisation or a large private provider, is contributing to the quality of what is delivered.
Amendment No. 274 would prevent Ofsted from including a grade or an indication of grading in an inspection report. I disagree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on that. I am sorry that she linked it—unhelpfully—to the idea of league tables, because it is not about league tables. She acknowledged that there is a well developed inspection practice across many fields, including probation, prisons, education and the health sector, and a considerable body of best practice. In none of those instances do inspectors ascribe a single benchmark—a pass or fail standard—as a result of their inspection.
The provision is predominately about parents and information for parents, so it is essential that in education and child care across the board there is a system whereby parents can understand where the setting in which their children are being cared for sits in the quality spectrum. We want everybody, ultimately, to reach the highest standards, but the process of getting there will involve different settings at different points, albeit above a broadly satisfactory standard. Parents must have that information.
The hon. Lady might know that Ofsted publishes its inspection reports on the website, which is very good. The number of visits to that website—more than 17,000 a day—shows the extent of interest in the performance of early years provision and schools by the parents who use them.

Annette Brooke: I should perhaps qualify my remarks. I said that it was important for parents to read the Ofsted report. Transparency, openness and access to information are all important. Once we get down to a single mark or grade, people will be concerned that league tables might come into the frame.

Beverley Hughes: We are certainly not talking about a single mark, as I think the hon. Lady knows. However, while parents can read inspection reports, they are not necessarily familiar with and expert in the way in which Ofsted inspectors assess and judge the criteria that enable them to come to a conclusion about a setting. Parents should have a simple yardstick to enable them to interpret the detailed findings in a report.
The hon. Lady knows that the grades are satisfactory, good or outstanding, and that there are two grades for settings that are judged to be inadequate. Both those grades have different  implications for the speed and frequency with which Ofsted carries out return visits and requires the instigation of an improvement programme.
That is quite important information for parents to have and I should not like Ofsted to move to a simple grading of satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Our focus should be on parents and not on some misguided attempt to neutralise the impact of inspections by reducing the grading simply to satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Parents want to know more. The grading system is simple; it is not over-complicated. It serves its purpose and, for parents, it is important that we retain it.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out her reasons for rejecting the amendment. I am convinced by much of what she has to say. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 24, line 17, at end insert—
‘(da)must post a copy of the report on the Ofsted website,’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 24, line 19, leave out ‘he considers appropriate’ and insert
‘which will increase accessibility to the report’.
No. 286, in page 24, line 19, at end insert—
‘(e)may make arrangements for the report to be discussed with the registered person.’.

Nick Gibb: The amendment requires Ofsted to publish all its reports, except for the sensitive material, on its website. As the Minister said, that is where the reports are published. The amendment merely seeks to include that requirement in the Bill. We had a debate about ensuring that all parents and prospective parents have the widest possible amount of information. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the Ofsted report is probably the most useful piece of information when a parent is trying to determine whether they feel comfortable putting their trust in a particular child care provider.
Amendment No. 60 would alter subsection (2)(d), which states that the chief inspector
“may arrange for the report ... to be ... published in any manner he considers appropriate”.
The amendment states that the report should be published in a manner
“which will increase accessibility to the report”.
It is important that as many parents and prospective parents as possible are made aware of the reports and encouraged to look at them before forming a view on which child care provider to take their children to. As we do more to disseminate and publicise the fact that these reports are on the website and available to be seen, we will find that a much wider cross-section of parents use the information, which is all to the good. I await the Minister’s response.

Annette Brooke: I agree with the sentiments of the Conservative amendments, although I do not know whether they are necessary.
I have to confess to ignorance in case the Minister tells me that what I propose in amendment No. 286 already happens. I do not think that it does, but I am not 100 per cent. sure. The amendment says “may” not “must”, which is a good start. When there is a school inspection, the team of inspectors returns and discusses the report, usually with the governors and senior members of staff. I imagine that it would be impractical always to do that with the many nursery and day care inspections, but I would have thought that face-to-face feedback from the inspector could serve a useful purpose in the same way that it does in a school. This is a probing amendment, because I am not too sure of my ground, but I think that what I am saying is desirable. I wait to hear the response.

Beverley Hughes: I hope that I can assure Opposition Members that the amendments are unnecessary because what they try to achieve is already in place.
On amendment No. 29, I said that the inspection reports are on the website and freely available. The number of visits that I cited suggests that parents are well aware of that and take the opportunity to visit the website and read them. Perhaps I should say that there may be some instances when it is not appropriate to publish a particular report on the website. The obvious example is when registered child care is provided in a women’s refuge and the need for the whereabouts of that setting to remain confidential is paramount.
I agree with the sentiments behind amendment No. 60. Parental involvement in the inspection process and their access to information are important. It is the practice of Ofsted to send a copy of the inspection report automatically and without charge to all parents of children attending a child care setting. For parents whose children are already at the setting, they receive a copy of the report; for other parents who seek information, the website is the point of access.
On amendment No. 286, the process will be similar to that which Ofsted adopts at a school. It will inspect a child care setting. When the inspection has finished, it will discuss its general and detailed findings with the providers and staff in the setting, and then write its report. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole accepts that although the discussion is important—not least to track any factual errors—Ofsted needs to reserve the right to write its report and come to the judgment that it thinks fit. If, after the report is received, there are issues about the improvement that is deemed necessary, as there is in some cases, there would be a further exchange between Ofsted and the provider.

Nick Gibb: Given the Minister’s assurance that the Ofsted reports relating to early years provision will be and will continue to be placed on the website, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Requirement to register: later years childminders for children under eight

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 25, line 18, leave out ‘it appears’ and insert ‘the evidence demonstrates’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 62, in page 25, line 19, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Nick Gibb: The amendment seeks to sharpen up the wording of the clause to ensure that when the chief inspector of schools intends to issue an enforcement notice on a child care provider because they are providing child care without having registered, the enforcement is based on evidence, not just whether it appears that someone is providing child care.
Amendment No. 62 therefore changes “may” to “must”. The amendments go together. If the evidence demonstrates that somebody is providing child care and they are not registered, the chief inspector must issue an enforcement notice that the child care provider should desist, or that the child care provider should be registered.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that the amendments sharpen up the provisions. They certainly change the action that Ofsted would have to take when it thinks that a child minder is operating without registration. The amendments seek to change the processes that Ofsted would follow.
To clarify matters for Committee members, a person acts as a child minder if they care for a child who is not a relative for reward for periods exceeding two hours a day. When Ofsted receives a complaint that somebody is acting as a child minder without registration, it will usually try first to contact the person to establish whether that is the case. Often, people are simply unaware of the requirement to be registered, and when they are contacted, they will either cease operating or apply for registration. When it appears that there is an issue, Ofsted, where appropriate, likes to offer individuals the chance to register if they wish to do so.
If we were to accept the hon. Gentleman’s “must” rather than “may”, a matter on which we have had a few debates today, Ofsted would have to dive straight in, close down the setting and stop the person doing any child minding. Although in certain circumstances that might be exactly the right thing to do, it would not be possible for us to argue that it always would be.
Of course, Ofsted needs to balance the potential difficulty and danger of allowing a child minder to continue without proper registration against the use of immediate enforcement to prevent the child minder from looking after those children. That is why Ofsted tends to observe settings to decide how best to proceed. One might refer to that as evidence, but “evidence” has a very legalistic interpretation and we might end up in  a situation where we need written statements and all sorts of things that would stand up as evidence in court.
There is no doubt that Ofsted will, in practice, balance the suspicion—it might have been brought to its attention by way of a complaint—that there is a breach of the requirement to register against a determination of whether it is such a serious matter that it has to close down the setting immediately or make the individual apply to register.
It is right to give Ofsted the discretion to do that and it has made the nature of its normal process quite clear. In its August 2004 report, it said:
“When Ofsted becomes aware of a person who may be operating illegally, the first step we take is to write to them to tell them an allegation has been made”—
it does not say by whom. It goes on:
“The letter makes sure they understand the legal requirement that they should register if they are providing childcare which is covered by regulation. It also explains the benefits of training, support and guidance that come with being registered, and how to apply for registration. If necessary, Ofsted continues to investigate the allegation.”
In a small number of cases, where there is ongoing evidence that individuals are providing unregistered care and not taking steps to regularise their position, it issues an enforcement notice. The report continues:
“This notice is a legally binding letter valid for 12 months and ensures that the person carrying out the illegal care knows that it is an offence to do so. If a person continues to care for children while such a letter is in force, they can be prosecuted.”
That is a well-known process giving inspectors sufficient leeway to ensure that they are not diving in and prosecuting people who have inadvertently not got it right, which would also put an end to child care availability as well. They must use their discretion and professionalism to get the balance right. I fear that the amendments might take away that flexibility in such instances and we would not be in favour of that.
Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s wish to improve the quality and sharpness of the legislation, he might create one or two potential consequences he did not expect when he tabled the amendment. With that explanation of what happens in practice, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wish to leave the wording as it is and seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Amess: Order. I should like to advise the Committee of the result of the investigations concerning the confusion over the amendment. I am delighted to advise the Committee that it was not the fault of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and nor was it the fault of our excellent Clerk. We have checked every correction sent to the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote and found that no one authorised the change. It was an editorial error.

Nick Gibb: I am relieved to hear that I have been exonerated, Mr. Amess.
Regarding the Minister’s response on the amendments, I would like to think that an Ofsted inspector would have evidence for anything they do or any judgment they make, even if it were not of High Court quality. The Minister set out in great detail the very thorough procedures that lead an inspector to  issue an enforcement notice, which was very helpful. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Requirement to register: other later years providers for children under eight

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 26, line 5, leave out from ‘made’ to ‘and’ in line 6 and insert
‘or approved by the proprietor of the school’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 244, in page 26, line 6, after ‘school’, insert
‘who is approved by the proprietor of the school.’

Nick Gibb: These two amendments try to bring into the exceptions from having to register later years child minding—the situation where the child minding is provided by a school, so it would not be required to be registered is one such exception—the situation where the child care is provided by a third-party child minder but within the school premises and approved by the proprietor of the school. Will the Minister consider whether that should also be included in the list of exceptions?

Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman says, where a provision on a school site is provided directly by the governing body—the proprietor—it will come within the province of Ofsted’s general inspection of the education facilities on the site. However, as he rightly says, there will be occasions when responsibility for that provision on a school site using school premises may not lie clearly with the school. Therefore, it will not be picked up in the inspection process, because it is not being provided directly by the governing body. It will be provided through a contract with a third party, using some of the school’s rooms or facilities, but with no accountability direct to the governing body. That is the key point.
In such situations and to ensure that provision complies with agreed criteria and children are safe, non-school providers, if I may call them that for a moment, must be required to register with the new Ofsted child care register that we have discussed.  Therefore, when schools look after children under eight, even if they do so on school premises, under agreement with the school but not directly by it—

Committee suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Beverley Hughes: I was explaining that where schools directly, through the governing body, provide child care on their own site, they will come under the auspices of the school inspection, but where they contract with other providers, those providers must register with the Ofsted child care register. That will enable us to ensure that all the care assessed through an extended school is of a consistent standard. We also plan to issue guidance, so that schools should link only with private and voluntary providers of child care for children over eight that are registered with Ofsted.
Those arrangements will help schools, which will be able to contract with providers in the knowledge that Ofsted has checked their suitability, as they will already be registered with the Ofsted child care register. There is then no need for schools to go through that process when they are considering contracting with a certain organisation. I believe that that is the best arrangement for parents, schools and providers, and I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: The Minister has been helpful in providing clarity about the position regarding a third-party provider of child minding in a school. She makes a compelling case for that provision to continue to be inspected by Ofsted. On that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 - Applications for registration: later years childminders

Amendment made: No. 143, in page 26, line 27, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.—[Maria Eagle.]

Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.]
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Three o’clock till Tuesday 20 December at Nine o’clock.